Hartford Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

274 So. 2d 774, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6892

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 12, 1973

DocketNo. 4124

StatusPublished

This text of 274 So. 2d 774 (Hartford Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 274 So. 2d 774, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6892 (La. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal purposes with Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., 274 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1973).

Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company insured the Chevrolet patrol car and paid the property damage claim in the sum of $2,244.00. State Farm appealed the judgment casting it and awarding Hartford a judgment in that amount.

For the reasons assigned in Johnson, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

Hartford was the liability insurer of the driver of the Chevrolet patrol car. Hartford was made party defendant in the Johnson suit in the event that Robinson was found negligent. Hartford moved for summary judgment contending that Johnson was excluded from coverage under the co-employee clause excluding coverage to “. . . any employee with respect to injury ... of another employee of the same employer injured in the course of such employment in an accident arising out of the . . . use of the automobile in the business of such employer.”

The motion was overruled for written reasons and Hartford seeks to have this court reverse that ruling and sustain its motion for summary judgment. The issue concerning the co-employee exclusion insofar as it relates to Deputy Sheriffs who were labeled “officials” is res nova in Louisiana and presents interesting questions which were resolved against Hartford. Hartford has prepared a persuasive brief in support of its contention.

Inasmuch as the trial court dismissed the suit against Hartford on the merits, the disposition of Hartford’s motion for summary judgment is moot.

The trial court judgment is affirmed at the costs of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MILLER, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal purposes with Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., 274 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1973).

Plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company insured the Chevrolet patrol car and paid the property damage claim in the sum of $2,244.00. State Farm appealed the judgment casting it and awarding Hartford a judgment in that amount.

For the reasons assigned in Johnson, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

Hartford was the liability insurer of the driver of the Chevrolet patrol car. Hartford was made party defendant in the Johnson suit in the event that Robinson was found negligent. Hartford moved for summary judgment contending that Johnson was excluded from coverage under the co-employee clause excluding coverage to “. . . any employee with respect to injury ... of another employee of the same employer injured in the course of such employment in an accident arising out of the . . . use of the automobile in the business of such employer.”

The motion was overruled for written reasons and Hartford seeks to have this court reverse that ruling and sustain its motion for summary judgment. The issue concerning the co-employee exclusion insofar as it relates to Deputy Sheriffs who were labeled “officials” is res nova in Louisiana and presents interesting questions which were resolved against Hartford. Hartford has prepared a persuasive brief in support of its contention.

Inasmuch as the trial court dismissed the suit against Hartford on the merits, the disposition of Hartford’s motion for summary judgment is moot.

The trial court judgment is affirmed at the costs of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 So. 2d 774, 1973 La. App. LEXIS 6892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fire-insurance-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-lactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack